CP+ 2013: Interview with Canon's Masaya Maeda

There will be a Canon EOS 70D, but the future of semi-pro DSLRs is probably full-frame, says Masaya Maeda, Managing Director and Chief Executive, Image Communication Products Operations at Canon. However, while he says new concepts are needed to save the compact camera, he doesn't see larger sensors as being the answer for the mass market.

No room for large sensor compacts

'Some say the digicam market is mature and that smartphones are eating into it. I would say this is true. In terms of the compact camera segment, new concepts are needed,' Maeda says: 'The PowerShot N is part of our response. Of course we have other things in the works but I can't talk about it yet'.

However, he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says.

'Silicon conductor technology is still advancing. The answer may change, but 1/2.3" is the answer at the moment. Users want to shoot at greater distances and want to get better photos in low light - these are the needs. There will always be a gap between smartphones and compact cameras in those respects.'

APS-C - the step-up architecture

'My idea is that, if you increase the size, you go with APS-C - that's the architecture that allows low light performance. That was the reason I put an APS-C sensor in the PowerShot G1 X and the EOS M - for the time being, that's the standard.'

And, he believes, customers do understand that there's better image quality to be had. 'If you look at sites like Instagram and other sharing sites, the ones that are getting the most likes and the most comments about the photography are the ones taken with a DSLR or dedicated compact camera, and there's discussion about "how did you get that?" and the answer is that it's with a dedicated camera.'

Despite this understanding, he concedes that the EOS M hasn't yet been fully able to exploit this market. 'Looking at worldwide results we've seen users are limited to certain regions - we're seeing very positive sales in Japan and South East Asia, looking beyond that we haven't established market share yet.'

'The concept of the EOS M is to make an interchangeable lens camera as small as possible while retaining the quality we would expect from an EOS product. It must be able to support a wide range of lenses - without that support, there's no point making it. Looking at the data, we're not seeing the EOS-M users making use of a variety of lenses. So one of the challenges is to roll-out a lineup of attractive lenses - that is our response to encourage people to use them.'

The future for semi-pro

Now that full frame is appearing in cameras the size and price of the 6D, the future of APS-C at the semi-pro level is in doubt, he says: 'That's something we're considering at the moment. From our semi-pro users there's still demand for APS-C but in the future, I think we will see an increase in the number of full-frame models.' Either way, that doesn't close the door on an EOS 70D though - when asked when we can expect one, Maeda promises: 'some day in the future. Without fail.'

Comments

Canon's biggest problem is that they refuse to acknowledge that Micro Four Thirds even exists. They sit around and simply rest on their reputation alone.

The Canon T4i is so far behind the Panasonic GH3 and Olympus EM5 but no one knows about Micro Four Thirds because of poor publicity until now. That is changing quickly and it will eventually force Canon to make changes to their philosophies.

Canon's immediate problem is sensor IP and a long-delayed fab upgrade decision. Currently they lag 2+ generations behind Sony, Fuji, Samsung and Panasonic (e.g., http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.ch/2011/09/column-level-adcs-overview.html). Canon can't find economical ways to circumvent Sony's and Samsung's IP :-) And then it's Fuji's X-Trans CMOS, as well as Panasonic's Live MOS sensors... It's certainly not the demise of Canon, yet these bits mark a milestone.

While Canon will attempt to play the CMOS leapfrogging game for a while, they IMHO have neither Sony's sensor market volumes, nor Samsung's scale and resources. A few heroical/canonical R&D efforts and 2-3 marketing hits are likely, but not sustainable. Likely Canon will force itself into a niche, adopt OEM sensors and continue w/ lenses and hi-end systems. Both canikon companies got stuck too long in protecting their dominant SLR positions to recall that 'canibalizing' R&D is expensive, yet necessary.

"the future of APS-C at the semi-pro level is in doubt"? Did he just admit he is clueless? Fact is there ARE semi-pros who want an affordable, high pixel-density, fast AF body, which the 7D and its successor (if there will be one) fills nicely. What doubt does he have?

Well, we will have to see what Sony and Nikon have to offer in the next few months. It means I will be selling the 300 II for sure. Hopefully someone will fill the gap. With good glass, I could care less who I buy from. Nikon is sure looking good. Hope they have a good camera for me,.

I couldn't care less about the 70D, what I want to know when we'll see the 7D replacement. Until they have a high pixel count, high frame rate FF, there is an urgent need for a high performance crop camera with the demise of the 1D IV. 7D has 48MP FF equivalent and it'll be a good 3-4 years before we see a FF with that pixel count that can do 8fps and when it does, it'll be a hell of a lot dearer than any 7D APS-C based replacement.

"I want to know when we'll see the 7D replacement. Until they have a high pixel count, high frame rate FF, there is an urgent need for a high performance crop camera with the demise of the 1D IV."

The 1D Mk 4 was 1.3 crop. It also cost more than 3x than the 7D at launch. Perhaps you want a 1D X?

"7D has 48MP FF equivalent [sic]"

Not really, unless you're talking about what would happen if the photosites of an 18MP APS-C sensor were spread across a full frame. Even then, 'equivalency' wouldn't be a proper term. 18MP is 18MP.

"it'll be a good 3-4 years before we see a FF with that pixel count that can do 8fps and when it does, it'll be a hell of a lot dearer than any 7D APS-C based replacement."

It may be a lot longer than that. Getting perfect wafers to cut from, engineering the tiny photosites to capture the light fast enough, and then getting it to not cost as much as a full sized sedan are big hurdles.

Mr Maeda seems to have included the G1X 1.5" sensor with APSC, but at the same time left the future of the 1.5" line unclear (with the 1/1.7 and other possible sub-APSC sizes). It would be a pity if the G1X line isn't developed - the G1X lens/sensor/image engine is a good one - a few key improvements could make the camera attractive to more buyers.

The alternative of the EOSM hasn't been the answer. After spending a decade refining the UI for the G series, they abandoned the external controls for a camera with no VF, a touch screen and two lenses. One would have thought they'd have learned from Sony (who introduced the NEX line without an adequate range of lenses) and Fuji (who succeeded with the X series because of great ergonomics and a suite of high grade lenses). I hope Canon follow their lead on built-in EVFs too. No built-in EVF, no sale..... for me anyway.

* High IQ compacts offering large zoom or fast aperture - for people wanting better than smart phone quality

* Smart phones - the new mass market compact.

I suspect most APS-C DSLRs will disappear having been replaced by mirrorless cameras that offer similar IQ but which are smaller in size. And low end compacts (from the established brands at least) will also vanish.

Perhaps. But with entry-level DSLRs like the Canon Rebel or Nikon D3100/D3200 still outselling most of the popular CSCs in the US (see Amazon Rankings for example) and in Japan, I have to wonder when the supposed death of crop sensor DSLRs is supposed to happen. We've been hearing how MILCs are going to replace APS-C DSLRs for quite some time, and as of yet the predictions haven't materialized.

I have to agree. If the crop-sensor DSLR market is in decline, it's a rather slow one. People tend to forget that it's quite easy to make decent lenses for APS-C DSLR cameras - much easier than it is for a mirrorless camera with the same size sensor (otherwise there would be tons of native lenses for Sony's E-mount and Canon's M-mount). Mirrorless cameras also don't offer such an easy transition to the coveted full-frame market, which is part of the bait to get certain people buying a APS-C DSLR in the first place.

I don't think this market is going anywhere anytime soon, short of a technological revolution that makes top-end mirrorless cameras and their associated lenses much cheaper and easier to obtain. (Read: For the APS-C DSLR to kowtow to the mirrorless market, an OMD EM-5, a GH3, or a EOS-M has to MSRP at $500 on day of release. Until then, people will buy a D3200 or a T4i without thinking twice.)

I agree with you that APS-C DSLR's are not about to disappear, but part of the reason for that is that the mirrorless market is still new and very much in flux.

The most mature section is the M43 part and some people are still reluctant to embrace that format as a serious contender for APS-C. In the remaining section there are several contenders - the APS-C mirrorless (Sony, Fuji etc), the smaller sensors (Nikon 1, Pentax Q etc). No one format has been able to establish a firm position as a serious alternative to APS-C DSLR's.There is, at least in the short term, room for all of these alternatives to 'flex their muscles' and try for market share.

The majority of consumers are in the "affordable" camera market. I am sure they have poured over the numbers and recognize where the biggest potential for growth in sales lies. Unfortunately, the comments above sound as though it's not in larger bodies with high priced lenses. The compact market of point and shoot is the zombie camera of choice. Just point - click and ahhh, you have a picture. Face it, smaller and less expensive is the future.

I wouldn't be surprised if further "consolidation" of Rebel bodies continues. No sense in overspending on a declining segment in the camera consuming market. As a result, new technology will be slow to roll out.

Not consolidation of the entry level DSLRs. Consolidation of all other DSLRs.

What Maeda-san has just said is he's in the business of staying in business, not in business to provide products for "low volume" markets. So the high volume is:

- Truely pocketable Point & Shoot- Entry Level APS-C, and he doesn't care if that's in a SLR or Mirrorless config, because Canon are developing these 2 in parallel (the 650D and the EOS-M are 2 versions of the same camera).

For everything else, at present there are too many product lines, so the number of choices will be reduced/consolidated. Hence semi-pro APS-C days are numbered.

What makes no sense is he doesn't see the need to use relatively larger sensors to differentiate the "truely pocketable" models from Smartphones, that are having the P&S market for lunch...

The FF fans seem to think that image quality is the only concern for most camera buyers. No doubt, it is for them, but not for the mass market. The fact that so many people are happy with their camera phones proves that image quality isn't an overriding concern for the mass market.

I don't care how cheap you price a FF camera, it will always be a niche market item, and not a mainstream one. I haven't noticed any FF lenses getting any smaller, lighter or cheaper, and the whole point of interchangeable lens cameras is "changing lenses."

The same people who buy a Nikon D600 can probably afford a Nikon D800. A $2000 dollar camera is only a bargain when you compare it to a $3000 camera, not when you compare it to a $900 camera. Especially when that $900 cameras does everything you want a camera to do.

It is only a matter of time before the $900camera you speak of is FF. Besides mainstream is an imprecise term. How mainstream are you talking? The vast majority will never spend more than a few hundred for a camera. Even $900 is more than most are willing to spend. The D600 and D800 were never meant to be mainstream cameras. They are for serious/professional photographers. Who are buying them in relatively high numbers.

As you said the average person is more than happy to just use a Cell phone. The future for dedicated cameras is the enthusiast/semi-pro/pro market which for the most part considers IQ to be one of if not the most important considerations. The mainstream mass market will increasingly just use their cell phone cameras and other integrated devices like tablets instead of a dedicated camera.

Josh152 thinks that you buy a camera body, and start taking pictures. There are such things as "lenses" too, which Marty so aptly points out. A 600mm equivalent lens is an expensive, heavy monstrosity on FF. Josh152 thinks that people don't really use lenses like that. Um, OK. The fact that people buy those lenses on Amazon, and review them, etc., is just a conspiracy to deceive you, Josh152. The pages, the reivewers, etc. don't really exist. (Cue twilight zone music.)

People buy TELESCOPES, for crying out loud, for bird pictures. Yet Josh152 thinks that a FF and nifty 50 will work for everybody.

What are Nikon 600mm lenses now on Amazon? I'll guess $8,000, without checking. I bet I'm not too far off. Call me, Josh152, when they get under a grand. Or maybe you can look in your handy-dandy crystal ball, where you got the FF future prices from, and just let me know.

Perhaps you also haven't noticed the Sony RX1. It is an example of a smaller, lighter FF.

People use the word "niche" to try to marginalize a format, but the fact is, for the mass market, ALL DSLRs are niche products.

Enthusiast, hobbyists, and pro photographers looking for the cameras with best possible IQ with the most future proof lens system are going to be looking at FF. The driving factor in camera sales for actual photographers and hobbyists will always be price, size/weight and IQ.

with the prices they are asking for the new FF lens capable of delivering the goods of a FF sensor for sure NOT everyone with APS will make the change!!! For sure i will not, and why would anyone would want to carry such big and heavy lenses if they could have them WAY SMALLER LIGHTER AND ABOVE ALL CHEAPER and doing basically the same?! (just compare 300mm f2.8 used with APS to FF used 400mm f2.8!!! AND YOU HAVE LESS REACH!!!... and PLEASE don't tell me the bokeh will be so very&extremely important -_-

bobbarber, Why do you insist on bringing up a very small market segment that is not even relevant to this conversation. You seem to think everyone is shooting birds. They aren't. The people who want/need a 600mm equivalent lens are few and far between. This conversation is about mainstream and even cameras like the OMD E-M5 or a cheap DSLR like D3200 are not even close to being mainstream. You keep bring up 600mm like it is relevant to everyone buying a camera. It isn't. It is only a small segment of the market that routinely shoots at such an extreme focal length and would miss it if they didn't have it.

And BTW most people do buy a camera and just start taking pictures. Well actually most people just buy a PHONE and start taking pictures. In the overall market the number of people who have ILC cameras is very small and the number of those that don't just use the kit lens that came with the camera is smaller still.

Explain please, with real data, and not your own ideas about what cameras people should be buying, if only they were as smart as you.

Maybe I'm underestimating you. You might have some secret, super-duper explanation about how FF cameras are mainstream. I'm not seeing it. I do see people buying telephoto though, not only 300mm for m43, but every conceivable class of travel zoom, superzoom, etc. There is a HUGE market for that.

Did you even read my post, especially the last paragraph? The only one fixated on FF is you. My argument is that no camera that is over like $300-$500 including lens is even close to being mainstream and that as cell phone cameras improve, dedicated cameras at any price are going to be less and less mainstream. Just look at camera use stats on Flickr. The i phone is at the top of the most popular list and by a significant margin.

And as sensor quality improves, people will prefer small sensors even MORE, because objections about noise and dynamic range will be less.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that there will be a rush to buy FF cameras, even at $900 (a price that exists only in your mind, for now), because of the cost and weight of the lenses. Some people will be willing to pay, and carry the weight, of FF for IQ considerations (which they may well be wrong about), but FF will never again be mainstream.

I own a FF 600mm lens, by the way, a Vivitar 120-600mm, Minolta MD mount. It is SLOW, and therefore light, not much glass, and it weighs more than my GH2 and 5 dedicated lenses put together. Nobody in their right mind will ever buy equipment like that again.

bobbarber, People dont' prefer small sensors, the prefer cheap cameras. Its the price not the sensor size that is important in this discussion. Most people buying cameras dont' even know there is a difference between the sensor in their cell phone and the one in their friends "big" expensive camera. Nor do they care about getting 600mm or not. Your problem is you are not distinguishing between market segments and are assuming every one is looking for the same things, namely reach, in a camera.

As good as smaller sensors get larger ones of the same generation will always have better dynamic range, noise, and resolution. That said smaller sensors do make sense if you are mainly shooting at extreme telephoto , but again most enthusiasts and pros aren't doing that and would much rather have and need the benefits of the larger sensor more than they need 400mm-600mm reach and the mainstream market is almost completely satisfied with the i phone that doesn't really zoom at all.

You are right when you say there is more than one thing involved in selecting a camera. It isn't just IQ, or just "reach" or just about cost. Although for some people it really is about just one thing, for most the decision involves a combination of factors.

I say FF will always be a niche product, because it ONLY does one thing really well. These are the cameras for people who value image quality the highest, at the expense of size, weight, convenience and cost. And this group normally includes some really outstanding (an/or wealthy) photographers.

But one thing is certain.... technology will always keep improving. This means that a crop sensor camera today can give you technically better images than a FF camera could have given you ten years ago.

(Just for laughs.. try comparing files from a Nikon D7000 and a Kodak Pro 14N from just ten years earlier!)

This trend could make FF the "new medium format" and render it useful for ONLY the most demanding users.

The fact is all DLSRs and compact system cameras are niche products no matter what sensor they have. I think what will happen is the lower end $600-$1200 camera market will be all mirror-less system cams with APS-C/M4/3s sensors and the more expensive $1500+ cameras will be the DSLRS and they will all be FF. Something like a slightly better spec'd D600/6D type camera at $1200-$1500 will end up being the bottom of the DSLR market. I think as FF sensors improve the low end of the Medium format digital market will also dry up and only the top end, most expensive models will remain. Maybe at sightly lower price though.

The compact fixed lens camera market will probably end up with only cameras in the G15 class or higher and maybe a super zoom or two. Cell phones will completely replace anything lower end.

I believe we are still at least a decade away from the scenario I describe fully coming to fruition. For right now it makes sense to focus the DSLRs on FF as that is where they are going to have to end up. As smaller MILCs ability's continue to catch up to and surpass entry level DSLRs the only people who will want to lug a DSLR around will be the serious enthusiasts/Pros. It could be Canon is planing on selling FF rebels at sub $1000 prices along side mirror-less solutions or they could be planing on the EOS M eventually replacing the Rebels. Making all the DSLR models, even the cheap ones FF might be the only way to entice people to buy the lower end models instead of more convenient MILC options. How the lower end of the DSLR/upper end of the MILC market plays out over the next decade will be very interesting.

The sub $200-$300 end of the P&S market is rapidly being replaced by cell phones. If Canon doesn't plan for the day when they are no longer selling any of the Cheaper P&S cameras such as the highly successful A series, they are going to be in real trouble.

From Maeda's comments it sounds like their plans are to basically have their P&S cameras start at G15 sized sensors in their cameras and maybe still have a G1X type large sensor camera, maybe even with a full APS-C sensor. It seems like they are going to skip the in between sensors like the 1" sensor in the RX100 and just go with small and big which may turn out to be very smart.

"However, he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says."

Translation: "RX100 caught us with our pants down and we have nothing to offer and will not have for years".

"GEZZZZUZZZ! ALWAYS someone begging for FF!!! o_OHow many of you ARE ACTUALLY BUYING THE RX100????"

Higuel, you are way too excited, and forgot how to read in all that excitement. I am not talking about RX1, which is certainly a niche novelty competing with Fuji X100 and Sigma DPs for a few people who would be content with a single focal length forever, yet not content with their smartphones.

I am talking about RX100, which is not FF at all, yet offers 4+ times bigger sensor than a typical point-and-shoot, fast (at wide at least) zoom and point-and-shoot size and simplicity.

'"That's something we're considering at the moment. From our semi-pro users there's still demand for APS-C but in the future, I think we will see an increase in the number of full-frame models."

It is clear from this statement that semi-Pro APS-C is in it's last iterations and Canon and probably Nikon too are going to be moving anything above $1000 mark to FF within a generation or two. The 70D/D7100 will probably be the last or second to last semi-pro APS-C DSLRs.

I suspect Mr Maeda knows a lot more about the IQ potential of forthcoming sensor designs / sizes than most of us. Also about balancing the advantages and disadvantages of various sensor sizes together with the design of lenses required to support each format. While the size of sensor used in the Sony RX 100 might seem wonderful to some 'enthusiasts' you could argue it's only a halfway house between what Maeda is suggesting is the sweet spot for the sensor size used in mass market compacts and a larger sensor that offers a real IQ step up, i.e. APS-C (or close to that such as is used in the G1X. Maybe he's right? As sensor technology is likely to continue to improve I suspect he will be proved to be so.

I think the size of sensor is one thing, the preformance of a camera is another issue. I like 6D because of the weight and I own a lot of C/Y lene. AF performance and flame rate are not an isssue for me. The less vibration caused by smaller shutter assy and 1.6X crop factor are also a plus of APS-C format.

Maeda is on the right track when he says 'The concept of the EOS M is to make an interchangeable lens camera as small as possible while retaining the quality we would expect.'

The point he missed is that people who want smaller cameras also want smaller lenses. Much smaller, in fact.

And this is why Nikon made a better decision by adopting a new (smaller) set of lenses for their smaller CX camera. Pentax made the same mistake with their K-01 (although they got it right with their Pentax Q.)

The advantage of having a smaller ILC camera is virtually erased when only one lens is properly scaled for it. No one really wants to walk around with a 70-210mm Canon L lens on a tiny camera.

You're right, although the EF-M adapter is simply a stop gap to allow Canon time to produce a range of smaller lenses for the EOS M (and its derivatives). Nobody is seriously going to use a lens like the example you gave on a regular basis - but at least you can.

Yeah, I re-read the statement several times already. 7dmk2 is dead in the water. He seem to think that all enthusiast should move up to FF, and the semi-enthusiast should be content with a 70d (even that is semi-questionable base on the tone of this statement)

I believe that my Canon SX230HS has a 1/2.33 sensor, and I like it a lot, for the reach it gives me. Also, critical image quality is pretty good at the right focal length, and shooting raw via CHDK. Actually, it is very good indeed. To be honest, it is not that great at the wrong focal length (wide angle, especially).

I notice he studiously avoids mentioning m43. That is the logical step up from 1/2.3 in my opinion. The prices for FF put it out of reach for most consumers. This has always been about price versus IQ.

Some people say that FF does not compromise IQ. Wrong. FF is a compromise when compared to medium format digital, or scanned large format film. FF camera owners are compromising IQ, like everybody else.

So the question is, "How much is enough?" For me, m43 is MORE than enough. I read a lot of posts here criticizing pixel-level IQ of m43, but I have questions about how many prints those people make. I don't see the problems with m43, at any print size.

OT-Not for nothing, but with all their photographic savvy you'd think they'd spring for a professional portrait of one of their top executives. I've seen passport photos and damp wash cloths with more personality.

I understand your comment, but I think that people who continue saying that larger sensors are the answer for everything have it wrong.

I went with 4/3 in 2005 because of telephoto. A 300mm lens on 4/3 is 600mm equivalent, and costs a couple of hundred bucks on the used market. What does a decent full frame 600mm lens cost?

Again, I understand the reason for your comment, but I think your understanding of what other users need is poor. Smaller sensors are a very good thing indeed for many of us. Small sensor size, and telephoto capability, is a FEATURE, not a compromise.

It is only a small segment that wants/needs the perceived extra reach a of a small sensor. The vast majority are much better served by and want a larger, higher IQ sensor. I'm not saying there wont always be a place for M4/3s cameras, I am saying they are not the future of all photography like the M4/3 fanboys keep saying and that M4/3s can't and wont ever replace a FF or even APS-C DSLR.

You are right. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think that m43 is right for everybody, far from it. But as things stand now, m43 is much more versatile than FF. 14mm equivalent lenses are affordable on m43, and telephoto is much, MUCH cheaper on m43, and lighter, etc.

You need to read up on wildlife photography, or go take some pictures of birds. Telephoto capability is not a "perceived" need. It is real.

Most people (i.e. regular consumers, not photo enthusiasts or pros) want "more zoom", "better AF", "punchy JPEGs", not larger sensors. I doubt most people are even aware of what kind of sensor their cameras have, or even know what a sensor is, just like most people know nothing of what's inside their microwave oven, Playstation or TV.The 2/3" sensor of X10, or the 1" sensor of RX100 is not a selling point for most people. I don't think these larger sensors will migrate downstream and become standard in low- and mid-range compacts; they will remain in the high-end section of the market.

Please josh152 leave Bobbarder in peace! He spoke what SO MANY MORE PEOPLE WHO BUY APS-C AND 4/3 AND M4/3 and now even mirrorless APS-C think and feel! I don't know ANYONE who actually wants to carry a 600mm!!! But i sure know A HUGE AMOUNT that whant that reach!!!I understand your preference for FF, i really do! But you should respect other opinions and choices also! :)

@Higuellol Bobbarder is the one who started arguing with me. But your right. Trying to convince Bobbarder his needs and want's are not the needs of everyone or even the majority of the market is futile. He will never believe anything other than everyone wants 600mm.

Money talks, bulls$&t walks. Full-frame can't replace APS-C because it is not cheap enough and micro 4/3 can't match the DSLR using the smaller sensor. Camera makers are mad if they think the majority of APS-C users will go up to FF. nope, if they have to choose, the vast majority will go downstream leaving all that potential revenue safely tucked away in the back of their wallets to pay their smartphone bills.

Precisely, not everyone is a Professional Photographer who can justify spending $1800 ~ $3000 for a FF body. Even when I have the money, I prefer the smaller, lighter, APS-C dSLR that also give me more reach for shooting telephoto.

Its not just the money, its also the SIZE + WEIGHT plus the SIZE + WEIGHT of BIG BULKY FF lens. I don't care for FF. Unless canon can squeeze a 6d in a Canon Rebel Plastic Body for under $700, I'm not interested. I'm not alone in this thinking. I prefer APS-C over FF

Also, telephoto is better on APS-C, and especially m43, which I use. I have a dedicated 300mm lens, 600mm equivalent, that I use on m43. What does something like that cost on FF? What would it weigh? Don't even want to think about it.

It is time to think about small sensor size as a FEATURE, not a compromise. Actually, many of us were thinking along those lines years ago.

There is no reason a FF camera couldn't' be very near the Size and weight of a Rebel body and I believe it is only a matter of time until it happens. Right now such a camera would probably have to be in the +$1000 range but Cameras like the 6D and D600 have made it clear it is only a matter of time before sub $1000 FF is possible.

Why don't you look up 600mm lens price and weight on FF cameras? You are missing the point. Trust me, there is no way for you to win this argument. FF cameras are great, and the right decision for many people, but they are just plain the WRONG cameras for many users, because of size, weight, and lack of telephoto capability.

You seem to be over estimating the number of people who need or want the reach of a 600mmm lens. Especially in a rebel class body. You are also forgetting this thing called a teleconverter. I suggest you look it up. Plus if you shoot Nikon they have a DX crop mode on all their most recent FF bodies.

Right, so according to you paying $3,000 for a FF body, and using DX crop mode, is a viable alternative to a m43 body. Anything you say.

Also, the 300mm lens I use, Olympus 70-300mm lens, has 164 reviews on Amazon. A lot of people are buying it. I don't think I'm overestimating the demand.

FF, for the moment, is a niche market. If prices come down, that may change. But I don't see prices coming down as you do. You are fixated on sensors, and forgetting the lenses. There is a lot of glass in FF telephoto lenses. People have used telephoto lenses since the beginning of photography. They will continue to use them. That won't change, regardless of your personal shooting style. However, now people can do telephoto cheaply, on smaller sensors. That is known as a FEATURE of small sensor systems, not a compromise.

All your points are in the future. They aren't grounded in reality, in what people are using and buying now.

m43 sensors are slightly smaller than Canon's APS-C, mostly in width (4:3 vs 3:2), but the latest generation (Oly OM-D E-M5, E-PL5, E-PM2) they are still better in every characteristic compared to every Canon APS-C (and to Nikon D300s, and to every Sony APS-C DSLT).

Guys, I'll dive back in here and make a couple of comments:1. the economics will drive it all, and as you'll see from Thom Hogan's analysis of US camera sales in his Dec 24 and Dec 5 posts, (http://www.bythom.com/2012%20Nikon%20News.htm), FF sales might be growing but APS-C is still far-and-away the largest because it puts enormous capability in the hands of the bulk of us (I can't afford FF telephotos - Nikon's latest 800mm is $17,000!)2. full frame senors will always be more expensive and generally system costs are 3x that component cost to produce a camera.3. each sensor has its advantages but there won't be a one-for-all for years to come.I hope either Nikon or Canon break ranks soon and get back to the APS-C world soon because when one does, the other will and we will all benefit from clear product differentiation and pricing. (PS I use Canon for film (AE-1P going strong) and pocket (S-95), and Nikon for digital (D7000) and love 'em all.

And let me add to point 2...From what I understand, a full frame sensor is around $400 and a crop frame sensor around $50. The huge differential is due to the added complex lithography for the size of the die and the additional steps required in production. So I guess it'll be a long time coming before an FF sensor can match APS-C pricing.

I wonder if something has been "lost in translation" here. It would make no sense to keep the 1/2.3 sensor which is too close to phone sensors in quality and one reason why compact sales have dived.I am sure he meant t to say that the future compact should all have the larger G15 size sensor.At least I hope so.If not Fuji must be rubbing their hands with glee,after all their larger 2/3rds sensor should be perfectly adequate for many peoples' needs as far as "expert" compacts are concerned.

I use a Canon SX230HS, 1/2.3 sensor. That small sensor size is what makes the extreme reach in a compact camera possible.

You are missing the boat. Most people don't walk around framing the noses of statues in their fancy large-sensor compact, with zero telephoto capability, and showing off the IQ they paid 10-20x too much for on photography forums. No, most people shoot pictures of flowers on third-floor balconies from time to time, houses on offshore islands, etc. Small sensor size is a useful feature. It is directly correlated with lower price, and greater telephoto reach.

Yes, the man who is currently CEO OF IMAGING FOR THE LARGEST CAMERA COMPANY ON EARTH is clearly simple minded. perhaps dpreview should have interviewed you, internet troll, to get some REAL insight into the state of imaging in 2013 and into the future.

1/2.33 inch sensors have to go !! They are making images ugly by implementing high ISO's on such small sensors and compensating for lowlight. So ok well why not get a brighter lens on compacts? Say F2.0 for Canon Powershot line ? . Lets not forget the switch from CCD to CMOS , this has created a long field for banding noise issues, that i have never had in my CCD cameras for night photography.Also the need for a long shutter speed option on the point and shoot line, unfortuneatly 15sec dosnt cut for my G15s potential of 60sec or greater.

I don't think it's right to say that they do so "without regard to loyal consumers". Seems to me that it's more like they regard the consumers as loyal enough to keep consuming from them rather than switching to another brand...

Re-read the article. I don't see anything about Canon abandoning anyone. He is simply saying that in future, *SEMI PRO* photographers are likely going to move towards full frame cameras. Makes perfect sense to me. APS-C sensors and EF-S mounts are still going to be around for a while...

Current events tell us there are two main groups of people taking photographs 1. Smart phone shooters(convenience, portability, availability) who are not under pressure to achieve big prints albeit with limited technical ability of the device 2. People who want the ultimate ability to take pictures in most of the conditions( full frame, APSc and to a degree m43). IMHO as the full frame prices come down and with the choice of good and cheaper lens alternatives from independent brands APSc will become obsolete because of full frame being far superior in terms of low light performance and DOF control. I think that m43 will become the format alternative or/and supporting act to the full frame experience. For the compact segment, if they produce models with fast lenses with minimum reach for 200mm for a superior low light photography and flexibility they might be the viable alternatives to smart phones. Also there will always be a room for superzooms for people who want-kind of-all in one

(head shaking) I cannot believe the words coming out of this mouth! He just confirm 3 fear:- Canon P&S will forever stuck with lousy 1/2.7" sensor- APS-C camera has no FUTURE- Canon 70d will be release BEGRUDGINGLY, no 80d in the future.

I will sell off every one of my EF-S lens now. Heck, I might as well just switch to Nikon now.

If you read carefully what Maeda is saying"My idea is that, if you increase the size, you go with APS-C"This is right if you come from a tiny sensor, M4/3 is also true of course but Canon marketing will never tell you this.As mirrorless keeps getting better, APS-C DSRL will die. And if it doesn´t, well they will just kill it.Canon already made the move: 6D priced to discourage APS-C DSRL´s.

Sergio, you can't price another camera out of existence unless they are on equal footing. They are pulling some people up into the FF market which means more profit while trying to keep their high end FF bodies special enough not to threaten those future sales. In the end what's happening is the price points are staying almost the same and that money is going to get you more and more camera. The XXD line has slowly shifted from $1,500 down in cost, but then we got a killer camera in the 7D for $1,800 with features that would have cost much more to purchase before that. Stratification will occur, jumping the fence from one segment to the other will occur both up and down, but thinking the APS-C with it's many feature sets and price points will ever go away is shortsighted.

My Sony NEX says that larger sensors are the way to go. It's small enough (with the correct lens) to slip into most of my jacket pockets whilst the IQ is outstanding. I'm never going back to a smaller sensor. I almost bought a Canon S100 because it was so cute and versatile, but I did some tests and the indoor / low light results were nothing on the NEX. (The low end affordable NEX's offer IQ almost as good as the high end, just lesser ergonomics.)

I tried the EOS M and whilst the touch screen and results were outstanding, it was too expensive and lacking features that less expensive cameras offered.

Whats he talking about? Not just only the Sensor size matters but also the availability of reasonably priced Lenses.

If I would go Fullframe I would be looking at the category of 2000-4500€ and upwards for the full package with Lenses. With APSC I am comfortably below 1400€. That is a huge difference for the enthusiast hobbyist.

What does he mean with semi-pros go to FF in the future? He thinks all the enthusiast amateurs are going to Fullframe and pay prices like 2200-4500€ and more for their hobby?

I think he is making have baked statements that are not thought thru to the end. I could be wrong though and canon will reveal the lense-less camera.

with time and a bigger market share of FF cameras the lens price will go down.of course you have to take the global market and exchange rates into account.and it will happen over time not in a few month.

He is telling you APS-C will not come on Canon´s DSRL cameras.He may be realizing mirrorless is growing so fast that APS-C (and of course M4/3) will take the market for this kind of sensor size.He is offering to go to a 6D if you want the mirror.

No, it doesn't. So thats a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy, isn't it? What does he mean by "a variety"? Do they really expect someone is going to buy an EOS-M and then put EF-S lenses on it with an adapter? You might as well buy a T4i. This statement looks like Canon just don't understand the Mirrorless market at all.

Actually, in lots of the answers in this interview, Maeda-san comes across as quite clueless.

Right ! And why Fujifilm has 1/2, 2/3 sensors, and why Panasonic and Olympus perform - and succeed - so well with a 4/3 sensor ? Oh, my ! Once again, Japanese show how good makers they can be, and how bad they are in marketing and communication... But Japan is a land of paradoxes, everybody knows that !

Thanks Andy to take The Moth back on tracks. As for what he says - I won't answer anything to his insult that tells enough what he is made off - about the future of the camera market, here is what has to be said: the standard four-third/micro-four-third is in great progress as many graphics prove it sufficently to avoid endless (and pointless) opinion discussions. Just two of them:1) http://tinyurl.com/bddyskl2) http://tinyurl.com/bfker9b

As for what Panasonic would be planing about its camera division, nothing is decided yet. Panasonic is just in a big financial mess (as are Olympus and Sony though) and that's the only reason why the idea has been pronounced, nothing else.

That said, more and more lens makers seem eager to be involved in the 4/3 move, as well as newcomers who all will push again and again against the DSLR. Facts and figures, nothing less, nothing more.

Note: I do not have any 4/3 gear and work mainly with my big Canon 7D and a little Fujifilm pocket camera.

When the day comes for my Four Thirds DSLR gear to become replaced, I'll be open to all offerings.

If mirrorless systems will evolve significantly until then, I might go mirrorless. As the state of mirrorless is now, I wouldn't, though, so another DSLR system would be the probable choice.

Back in 2005, I did choose Four Thirds for a reason: high-quality telephotography with portable gear of limited size and weight. And while Four Thirds failed to deliver on many promises, that was one it didn't and still doesn't.

For the same reason, while an APS-C DSLR would be an alternative, a full frame DSLR rather would not.

So if Canon doesn't want to sell me a decent (meaning: at least semi-pro) APS-C DSLR, then fine, it'll be Nikon, Sony or Pentax then. It's as easy as that.

In my opinion if you go with APS-C in a compact mirror-less camera you still cant make a lens system small enough relative to a similar full frame system, I guess because of sensor size and aspect ratio. Thats why micro four thirds just feels like a balanced system and not lens-heavy, its the Goldilocks zone between sensor size and aspect ratio for a compact interchangeable system. APS-C will slowly sail into the half way house between micro four thirds and full frame I think.... too big to be made compact but never big enough to replace full frame.

I currently have APS-C DSLR and mirrorless, m43, Nikon 1 and Pentax Q. I can say that there is gradual difference in sensor size between Nikon 1, m43 and APS-C. If a native lens is made for an APS-C, it will not be significantly bigger than the m43 lenses. Similarly, that explains why Nikon 1 lenses are not much smaller than m43 lenses of same focal length.

This statement surprised my es well (not only because I have a 1/1,7" sensored Canon). The gap between 1/2,3" and APSC is huge and especially for compacts I see a lot of reasons to have a sensor smaller than APSC, but bigger than 1/2,3" (e.g. 1").On the other hand I agree that for a mirrorless CSC an APSC (or at least 4/3) sensor is optimal.

I think the reason that 1/2.3" is "logical", but 1/1.7" is "less logical", is a bigger yield of chips on a circular die. So it's "logical" for the makers. I wonder if users will agree?

The SNR improvement from 1/2.3" -> 1/1.7" is only +0.6 stops.

But going from 1/1.7"-> MFT is +2.4 stops, while at step-down from APS-C (Canon) -> MFT is only - 0.55 stops.

Funny, I can't see the -3.5 stops drop in SNR when going from APS-C (Canon) -> 1/2.3" as being very logical at all.

-3.5 stops: that's the noise difference going from ISO100-> ISO1100. Perhaps you won't find this change in sensitivity objectionable if you just keep cranking up the in-camera NR, until there's as much fine detail left as in a bugs bunny cartoon.

Yep, sometimes even vastly experienced people make mistakes like these. Foreseeing possibilities is a gift, no doubt, but the real success lies in adapting to those possibilities. IMHO, Canon is just waiting for others to take the plunge and warm things up while the firm redesigns its own sensor manufacturing pipeline and maybe even get to a new process node. Once that happens, Canon will suddenly start to see helluva lot more logic beyond 1/2.3 inch just like MS did in >640K RAM or IBM in >5 computers! :)

I'm also shocked that a CEO for a camera maker could make a statement that inane.

There are CLEARLY around four different image quality levels that are primarily due to sensor size:

* Full frame* Crop sensors (APSC and 4/3)* Larger small sensors (1/1.7' THROUGH 1")* Tiny small sensors (1/2.3" and smaller, including cell phones)

There will be some overlap, especially when shooting in perfect light. But if Maeda thinks "if you don''t get FF, then you might as well go directly to the smallest sensor" then he has never actually used a camera.

I dare to doubt that. Nowadays when so many people upgrade from p&s to APSC cameras (either DSLR or mirrorless) and buy dedicated APSC lenses there is not a big threat that APSC DSLRs will ectinct.I have an APSC DSLR with couple of lenses and do not plan to go mirrorless, neither buy a FF. APSC is an ideal compromise between quality and size.

Hardly. There will still be a 70D and maybe even an EF-S 7DII (this was neither confirmed nor denied).

They may not be the "semi-pro" model you expect, but given the number of features tricking down from top to bottom, I'm sure they'll still be excellent cameras. And plenty of "pros" use the xx0D series already anyway.

so no more 7D II?And the noiseless dying of the EF-S lens-line?Only one 70D in the future and not now?Okay, then it will be Panasonic GH3/G5 to take over.

I would have liked a 7D II for 1500$ with better AF, fast and a new 22 mb sensor with fast live view and full moveable screen.

The EOS M was a very bad idea - a beginners camera for 900$ without viewfinder and lenses or even fast AF - shame on you - canon!Now they lost everything against mFT (44 lenses) and Sony (25 lenses). No one will need 60 heavy and mostly old and expensive DSLR-lenses.

When I see the problems with AF (Olympus/Panasonic) and the slow speed of the FT lenses - it is clear - that Canon will have the same problems with all EF lenses for the EOS M. The only solution is: new-modern lens-constructions!Panasonic and Sony are ahed of time!

But I think that it would be a better specialized photographer and to have only Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM ... improvement is mainly about training :) But for it would be necessary to get better some features of Canon EOS M camera.

Canon is in the business of selling lots of cameras, small niche products are to be left to someone else...but their data shows that FF is where the future lies for ultimate quality...I am happy with that. I would rather have a cheaper FF backup than aps-c...Re the eos-m, it would seem that even a giant like Canon will need a few years to get up to speed..the competition has a head start here...but I believe that one day we will see a competitive product..we will just have to wait, unfortunately. The problem I have with owning too many different systems is that they cant integrate (for backup purposes etc) and its just too much too learn and remember, so I stay with Canon because its not just about the cameras they also have a fantastic lens range, which is just as important and I know the system and have invested heavily....so I am happy to wait...

Defititely. And another big issue is the viewfinder: an EVF (eat least attachable, but better a built-in) would make the EOS M much more appealing. And even G1x could be nice with an EVF instead of tiny dark and inaccurate OVF.

AND when you finally go into the mirrorless market, with an APS-C sensor, YOU CHANGED THE MOUNT !"Looking at the data, we're not seeing the EOS-M users making use of a variety of lenses."WHICH LENSES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? The ones your actual customers DO OWN? with an adapter for your own brand? Or shall they run to buy the newer ones ?

I want a 7D replacement with 5D3 like focusing including f/8 AF sensors, and a better high pixel density sensor. Video crop modes are also important to me. If the don't cough up something like that, I'll continue to use my 20D and 5D. If they do, I may buy both the 7D replacement and a replacement for my 5D, which could be the 5D3, 5D4 or 6D.

I sold all my Canon gear because I realised that Canon is too conservative and does not understand markets and emerging technologies. Canon was too slow to get into the CSC market and by the time it did, the product was not up to the competition. The EOS-M is a very disappointing first entry.

I loved my C5DII but it was too heavy to cart around the world with good quality lenses. The 550D is a great product but the 650D is a backward step. The very strength of Canon (the producer of good quality, reliable, benchmark gear) has become its Achilles Heel. You cannot ignore all the new ideas flowing from the competition, like Fujifilm, Sony, Ricoh, Panasonic etc.

Yes, Canon is too conservative and it shows in the coat and tie Mr. Maeda is wearing. When was the last time you saw Timothy Cook at Apple wearing a coat and tie? I think both Canon and Nikon are headed down a very rough road if their leadership fails to understand our changing world and act on it.

No offense to "our" changing road, but I think there might be more than one road to traverse. One day I might be with you on the muddy dirt road through the forrest with the rest of the hippies not wearing a suit taking photos with my smartphone while you use yours to snap Instagram images of trees and taking videos of people getting high, but when I want a real camera to take pictures I think I'll hop over to the road where grown ups wear a suit and tie when they go in to design my serious piece of photographic equipment.

Finally, a sane comment about 4/3 and 35 mm. Both can peacefully coexist because they each serve different but equally useful and necessary purposes. I have both. I use both. I like both, just not at the same time.

DSLM will be the near future of photography - now with 44 Lenses (mFT) from 7,5 mm to 300 mm without adapter - from f: 0,95.I make my wildlife photography still with EOS, because of AF-C and lenses like 2,8/300 and 2,8/400 with converters - but for traveling - I can do everything with my GH3. The future of DSLR-technology is running out - soon there will be DSLM Cameras with large Sensors and small lenses - but it seems like Canon and Nikon will not play the game anymore - it will be Panasonic, Sony and Fuji to take over (maybe Olympus too, but I don't like the handling of the OM-D - nor the cheap Zoom-lenses)

Re dlsrs and cscs, yes, me too, a D7000 and a V1 so far. Could have been a m43, but I liked the V1 AF and speed a lot when I tested various cameras in the store, and having a VF in a very small package.

I am sorry that some of you misunderstood me. DSLR technology is not dead. Nor will CSC technology kill it. However Canon's response to the introduction of innovative ideas by the competition seems to consist of producing more of the same.

The 6D, the 5DII and the 5DIII are all great cameras. Likewise, the 550D, 600D, 650D series. However, they are all very similar. Although the EOS-M is good, the very things that differentiate it from DSLR's do not perform well enough to compete with the other CSC's on the block.

I think Canon has a mindset that says 'We produce great gear and we have market share, so no need to take risks'. With such attitude they will lose market share. New technologies are continually being developed. That is why the industry has come so far in the 12 years since I bought my first digital camera.

Of course there is a place for DSLR's in the future, but variety is the spice of life. For me at the moment the Fuji X-Pro1 is king. Next year , who knows?

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.